Mister M Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I think it is fair to suggest that Littlejohn's column didn't exactly have a positive impact upon Lucy Meadows. Absolutely - I'm looking forward to the screaming headlines from the Daily Mail about a vulnerable transgendered teacher bullied to death by a right wing hate freak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 150m is a drop in the benefits ocean - if you really want to cut it then how about cutting the 17.7 billion bill for tax credits by getting employers to pay a living wage? Of course then you couldn't feel justified in trying to vilify those with the least in society who are struggling to make ends meet. How would you achieve that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 No wonder the DM was reported as being the newspaper that had the highest number of readers online. Its sensational news stories are written to gain the most attention, it would appear to be achieving the desired intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 No wonder the DM was reported as being the newspaper that had the highest number of readers online. Its sensational news stories are written to gain the most attention, it would appear to be achieving the desired intention. Probably because of all the semi naked women down the right hand side. And it isn't blocked by my employers web filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elumof96e Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Absolutely - I'm looking forward to the screaming headlines from the Daily Mail about a vulnerable transgendered teacher bullied to death by a right wing hate freak. I'm looking forward to the headline "child killer assaulted in gay shower attack" the prisoner said " i only dropped the soap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 How would you achieve that? Wouldn't legislation suffice? Incidentally I see George Osborne has also bought into the Daily mail line on the Philpot benefits generalisation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I'm looking forward to the headline "child killer assaulted in gay shower attack" the prisoner said " i only dropped the soap. 509 days between posts, have you been doing some porridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Wouldn't legislation suffice? I doubt it, we can't employ everyone as it is, if it’s more expensive for companies to employ people in the UK, they would just employ people elsewhere and we would have more unemployed. On a positive note, less work here would mean fewer people here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I think there would have been fewer kids if the state didn't support people like him and the children were clearly failed by the state, chucking money at them didn't do the kids any favours. It would have made no difference whatsoever. What you are implying is Phillpot's social awareness is based on his ability to care about what is wrong and what is right. Removing access to the benefits system would have no impact on any wrong or right decision. Phillpot for all intense and purpose would procreate regardless of any responsibility the general population take. Phillpots mentality is, 'my responsibility ends when I knock her up'. Now if you're proposing castration as a solution to his, or anyone like his antics, then that's a whole new question. As a social force collectively, it is our responsibility to make sure the innocent (children) of his actions are not ignored. You may have a problem with trashy 'kids' but that's how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I doubt it, we can't employ everyone as it is, if it’s more expensive for companies to employ people in the UK, they would just employ people elsewhere and we would have more unemployed. On a positive note, less work here would mean fewer people here. Clearly it would have to be implemented properly and sensitively. Small employers who don't have a great deal of profit should be exempt, and tax credits should continue. But it cannot be right that multinationals like Tesco and Asda that earn billions in profits to rely upon british taxpayers to top up wages. I don't know, maybe a national discussion about what is fair and what is taking the mick by companies might be good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.